HC issues contempt notice to senior Maha bureaucrats

The Bombay High Court has issued notice to two senior bureaucrats of Maharashtra, asking them to show cause why should they not be punished for committing contempt by not complying with the earlier orders of a bench.
The notice was issued to top officers in Housing and Urban Development departments on a petition filed by Sarla Agencies Ltd, whose application (in a case of redevelopment of a property) was not processed on the appointed date despite an assurance given by the government.
Justices A K Menon and V M Kanade made the notices returnable on April 2.
One of the respondent is Debashish Chakraborty, the Principal Secretary of Housing Department. The other respondent is the Principal Secretary of Urban Development.

"The respondents are high ranking officers in the bureaucracy. If such officers show scant respect to the orders passed by this court, it would not be possible for the judiciary to perform its functions and duties effectively," said the judges.
"The Apex Court in several cases has observed that this court should not issue notices to such high ranking officers directing them to remain present.

"We also accepted the statement made by government pleader and granted time on five occasions. Lastly, on February 12, we disposed of the petition in view of a statement made by the pleader that the order passed by the bench would be complied by February 28," said the judges.

Despite solemn assurance given by the respondents, again no steps have been taken, when the affidavit has been filed in disposed of contempt petition. Again, time was given to the respondents, but no reply has been filed so far, the judges said adding that they had no other option but to issue notice to the respondents.
"This is a sorry state of affairs. This court had granted time on atleast five occasions to the respondents, however, despite the statement made by the respondents through their counsel, the directions given by this court have not been complied," the judges said.
The bench noted that the respondents had not even shown courtesy to file a short affidavit giving explanation as to why the delay was caused in not complying with the order, nor have they tendered an apology to this court.